« How to Make a Great Impression on Potential Employers | Main | Rick Warren on "Trends in the Church" (Part 3) »
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
The Pastor Problem
I'm still trying to get my arms around this whole emerging church idea. I honestly think that much of the problem for me is that most emerging churches are emerging differently. (Anyone else get that feeling?) Anyway, I'm trying to read as many different perspectives as I can. Here's one I found interesting. According to this emergent writer, the pastors are the problem. Read this, and give me your perspective. Does the writer make any valid points in your opinion? (You can read his full post here if you like)
Pastors.
That's the number one weakness in the modern church today. Paid pastoral leadership is the reason the church is weak, inefficient and to a point...neutered.
Now remember, I made my living (is that what that was called?) from being a paid staff member for over 16 years. In the beginning, I felt that I was vital to the church's development and growth. That without me, the church body couldn't function. Over the years, that changed as I begin to read such books as Frank Tillipaugh's "Unleashing the Church". The goal of pastoral ministry became leading and training so that the people were equipped to do the work. That sounds like a good goal, however....
Are we that arrogant as pastors that we think if we didn't exist that people wouldn't figure out how to have church by themselves....without our leadership? Pastors, do we think that we need to create meetings, groups and activities to keep the church people "happy" and "connected"? Do we think that believers wouldn't figure out a way to get together regularly, for sharing, communion, mutual encouragement and to share their faith stories? Do we not think that the life force of the believer, the Holy Spirit, might not be "set free" to work in and through Christ-followers to accomplish his work here on earth?
Think about it. Whenever you pay someone to do a task or job, what are you really doing? You are asking them to take responsibility for something you don't want to do. Isn't this the American way??
If I need my yard landscaped or manicured, I hire someone to do it for me. Problem solved. If I want my house cleaned from top to bottom, I could do it, but why when I can pay someone $60 to come in and really do it well...and then I no longer have to get on my hands and knees to clean that darn toilet grime.
Now move this analogy to the American church. Whenever there is a job to do, we look to the person we hired to take care of it for us. To quote an article I read recently, "The pastor, by his mere presence, causes an unhealthy dependence upon himself for ministry, direction and guidance."
Even in today's most modern of churches, those labeling themselves as "emerging", the problem persists. Recently, one young local church (let's call it ABC Church) that I followed from it's infancy, had a tough decision to make. After about three years of existence, I heard that they were deciding whether to A) keep paying the pastor or B) keep paying for a place to meet each week. My question is...why do you need either? This isn't an indictment, just a question.
Now ABC Church was going to be "cutting edge". It's leadership from day one said that they were going to create a community independent of the "old ways" of doing church. Yet in the end, they were faced with a dilemma that all churches face...paid staff and building space. Doesn't sound very innovative to me.
At the beginning ABC Church said they were going to set up a church in a way that "no one else was doing". I am sorry people...but that just doesn't happen unless you choose some radical departures from the "old ways".
So here's a question. If all of the pastors in all of the churches resigned or were "let go"...what would happen? Or, to rewrite a line from the old Beatles song...."Imagine there's no pastors. It's easy if you try!"
Would the church flourish or struggle? If you choose flourish then why do we have pastors? If you choose struggle, then how well are our pastors truly doing their jobs of "equipping, training and leading" their congregations?
Before all of my pastor friends send me hate mail, I don't think it is all your fault. I think the church culture has caused you to function as CEO's and not pastors. We need you to resign yourself as the CEO's of your church or ministry. As fast as you can run away from treating the church as a business. Leave your church meetings, your planning sessions, your growth conferences, and go and interact with far from God people where they are - outside of your church. Stop bearing the burden of whether your church offering or attendance is what it should be - you just aren't that important!
Start encouraging your congregations to stop coming to so many church meetings and ask them to get involved in the local community activities outside of the church. Asking them to do both is only burning them out. And asking them to make a choice is only making them feel guilty. Encourage them to immerse themselves in their "work culture" and to get to know their co-workers and become their friends...not so they can convert them...but because all people need friends.
Finally, please stop asking us to bring our "unchurched friends" to your church to fill the empty seats around us. Do you actually know how difficult it is to get someone who is seriously "far from God" to come to church? By asking us to do this, you imply that the only way we can truly make a difference in someone's life is by getting them to the church building.
I have asked for all pastors to resign...and for some of you, that may be the radical change you need to actually get in touch with your own identity outside of the church system. But for others, it may just be that you need to "resign" yourself emotionally and become the change agent that will lead the church to the reformation we so desperately need.
What do you think? Any validity? I have some thoughts, but as blog owner I'll keep them to myself for the time being and share them as the discussion moves forward (if anyone's interested)...
Add Your Comments and Ideas now...Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts
July 12, 2005 in Leadership Issues | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/131723/2802833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Pastor Problem:
» Pastors from The Dying Church
From Stupid Church People: Pastors. That's the number one weakness in the modern church today. Paid pastoral leadership is the reason the church is weak, inefficient and to a point...neutered... Before all of my pastor friends send me hate mail,... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 12, 2005 2:23:48 PM
» Pastors from The Dying Church
From Stupid Church People: Pastors. That's the number one weakness in the modern church today. Paid pastoral leadership is the reason the church is weak, inefficient and to a point...neutered... Before all of my pastor friends send me hate mail,... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 12, 2005 11:23:41 PM
Comments
The pastor should be a teacher and a missionary.
Posted by: Dimovski | Jul 12, 2005 12:40:51 PM
That's quite an indictment against many/most? mega-Pastors. Looks like lots of common sense.
The summary paragraph says it well, and is balanced:
"I have asked for all pastors to resign...and for some of you, that may be the radical change you need to actually get in touch with your own identity outside of the church system. But for others, it may just be that you need to "resign" yourself emotionally and become the change agent that will lead the church to the reformation we so desperately need."
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Jul 12, 2005 1:59:01 PM
the Chinese church exploded when all their leaders.. indigenous and imported.. where killed or left the country. What is the implication for change for the church in North America?
Posted by: Rick | Jul 12, 2005 2:05:07 PM
A few days ago a friend reminded me of an analogy George Bush Sr. used in an inagural address back in 91'; a thousand points of light. The president used it to inspire Americans toward "doing good works" and "being moral people".
It seemed in our conversation among friends, the Spirit was teaching us about the Kingdom of God. Jesus said "you will do greater things than these"...why?...because I (Jesus) will indwell each believer and thus be humanly manifested in more than one body through intimate personal relationships with people; a thousand points of light.
God has many mediums through which His glory (character) is made known to men. All the created order declares His glory, but He indwells only one medium; believers - you & me. The lost see, understand and are drawn to God through the created order. They interact with Him (Jesus) through us; individual believers, until the day they receive Jesus' Life themselves which enables an intimate personal relationship of their own.
God doesn't indwell organizations, meetings, scripture, buildings, prayer closets, homeless shelters or songs just as He doesn't indwell trees, birds & clouds. So much energy in 'christiandom' is used to call attention to the glory of God when nothing man puts together even comes close to what He's already done through the created order. Look at the sun & sky, the stars & moon and compare that with the greatest concert light show or fireworks event ever; the scale and magnificence of His creation is beyond comparison. Our role isn't to call attention to the glory of God, but to "be" the glory of God...to our neighbors, co-workers, friends, acquaintances, strangers and enemies.
Jesus indwells you. People interact with Jesus through their interaction with you.
"Being" the glory of God to folks in the everyday of life; A thousand points of light in the middle of the forest gives light to those nearby...but what of those wondering out in the darkness of your everyday travels & living?
Posted by: Rick | Jul 12, 2005 2:06:41 PM
I just wrote a lengthy dissertation on this topic and it waslost forever in cyberspace....lol. Anyway, if anyone wants to discuss it further with me please contact. Bottom line: One pastor system is wrong....God's model allows for a plurality of Elders (1 Timothy 3, Titus 2). Elders are too be paid! (1 Timothy 5:17-18 "honor" references money specifically in a word study and study of syntax in the original kione greek. Pastor is a spiritual gift not an office (ex. Eph 4:12). There are only two offices....deacon and elder. People with the gift of teaching/preaching who are not elders are to be paid. Finally, could the church go without pastors yes...could it go without any leadership....no.....or 1 Timothy would not have been written. We need those who are apt to teach to prevent heresy. We have so much heresy now because the scripture is not valued as absolute truth in this country by leadership or lay people since the Post Enlightenment and more so Second Great Awakening Periods.
Posted by: Matt Thompson | Jul 12, 2005 4:31:03 PM
While we're at it, why don't we all design the church that WE think would be best.
So, I think if I were to design a church based on the gospels it would probably look more like this:
We would advertise;
-Unless you're willing to die to yourself, you don't want to come to this church.
-Unless you hate Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, yea even your own life also, you don't want to come to this church.
-Do you treasure God more than anything in life? So much so that you would part with everything in your life to have God? This is the church for you.
-Do you want to worship God and make much of him until eternity? This is the church for you.
You see we wouldn't have a church filled with people who whine because they understand that it truly isn't about them. So church life would go something like this:
"Did someone insult me? Oh, I didn't notice. Did someone judge me? Oh, I didn't notice. You see I know that what anyone thinks of me doesn't come close to how bad I really am, which is why I am so thankful for God's amazing grace and I purpose to spend my life making much of him, giving him as much glory as I possibly can."
Imagine living in community where people didn't even consider themselves at all because they were so busy loving and glorifying God. Unfortunately, as CS Lewis said, "the problem is that we think too small when it comes to God"
What would your church look like?
Posted by: pmn | Jul 12, 2005 5:43:04 PM
Pastors resign. Don't run the church like a business. Don't bring unchurched friends to church.
Man, on paper that just sounds incredible. But what it fails to address is the ramifications of these kinds of actions.
Now, to be clear, I agree with some of the principles discussed above, but not with the authors' methodology.
Let's take this step by step:
1) Pastors resign. OK, so we have a plurality of leadership, but now we lack a single visionary leader to set the course for the local body. So, in effect, we just created a committe of lay leaders to run the church. Strange, but that sounds a whole lot like a Doctor asking the patients to manage the Doctor's office - it's a recipe for failure as a means to an end.
Instead of throwing the Pastor out, why not use teams of leaders to handle the day-to-day operations of any growing church? Where does it say that the Pastor has to be a genius leader, visionary, accountant, custodian, artist, landscaper, architect, etc.?
2) What happens when churches don't have any kind of metric system for guaging the effectiveness of their growth? Or for the impact of individual ministries? Or for the marketing efforts? Or for how they spend money? Or how they hold people accountable to their responsibilities? Or how to make sure people (staff and/or lay leaders or volunteers) don't lose the balance of ministry with their family/personal life?
In other words, the very effective leadership and management that are so helpful in business still work wonderfully within the context of the local church. Do we throw away good principles and accountability just because it looks and acts a lot like the business world?
3) If you're not engaging the unchurched on a personal level and giving them a chance, over time, to come and experience corporate worship, how is that being a good fisher of men? With my church, we put a lot of effort into making the unchurched and formerly churched feel at ease in the weekend services. Should we stop doing that because it's hard?
I believe the author has great intentions but that his methods are not realistic or practical to implement. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, let's learn to creatively change how we do what we do without changing the timeless truth of the message. To follow the course of action described above may work wonders in dying, diseased churches (though I still have my reservations). But for churches turning the corner or blazing ahead, this kind of strategy will lead to a more loss, not growth.
My 2 cents on the pile,
Anthony D. Coppedge
Posted by: Anthony D. Coppedge | Jul 12, 2005 5:58:16 PM
What an "out of the box", thought!
Maybe Pastors could ask themselves, do I fit
the decription of a CEO, or a DOS(Director of Servants)? Isn't the church suppose to be about serving? We have strayed too far
away from our original purpose.
We should gather on Sunday in a building to praise Him for what He has done, and what He has allowed us to do, and to receive new instructions, NOT to be some "ecclesiastical status symbol" among
those who are also trying to be bigger and have more members, what a waste!!We have given the term "church"a bad name, maybe we should use the term "fellowship" or"gathering".
By the way I have been a church staff person
for over 25yrs, and whatever it is we don't
see in our Pastors, believe you me, the
people have certainly made thier contribution to the problem, by complacency,
or by lack of knowledge.
Let us recognize, then Pastor help people, and people help Pastor, get back to where
God meant for us to be, A PLACE OF SERVICE!!
Thanks,
phurston/dallas
Posted by: P Hurston | Jul 12, 2005 6:12:47 PM
What do you think? Any validity?
Valid yes. Do the people have ears to hear? I truly hope so. The emerging church and relevant movement might as well be called Laodicea (Revelation 3 and Colossians)
Here are my experiences of what is happening in many of the churches I've worked with and some of the "house churches" I've attended:
Here's what is going on outside the church:
The True Gospel is being defined for purposes of defense and evangalism.
Dogmatic doctrines are put to the test to define which ones are true and which ones are indefensible.
Belief systems are tested in Scripture and Iron is sharpening Iron.
They are edifying, reproofing, encouraging and correcting so they may be found worthy of the calling.
What is going on in the church?
Changing The Gospel to be more relavent to the individual needs of the "seeker" in hopes that being married to the world (as in business methods, practices and ideologies) will build the "kingdom of god".
Don't believe in absolute truth or that if there are any, they can't be known (as proven even on this blog).
Don't offend anyone and tolerate sin so we can reach the lost.
Reproof and correction are mocked and slandered.
Thoughts, ideas and books about the Bible are to be discussed as opposed to Scripture.
Posted by: BeHim | Jul 13, 2005 1:32:35 AM
Thank you, Todd, for finally posting an article that is so refreshing to read (and to agree with totally) that I'm just beside myself! :)
Posted by: Ricky | Jul 13, 2005 2:23:37 AM
Hey pmn:
Fantastic post!
Posted by: Ricky | Jul 13, 2005 2:24:10 AM
Quote:
"but now we lack a single visionary leader to set the course for the local body."
No you don't. Ever heard of the Spirit of God?
We need to discuss what the mind of Christ is (biblically) and how we obtain it.
(Hint: no one person can obtain it on their own. It takes a community to do so and it's that way for a purpose [safety])
Posted by: Ricky | Jul 13, 2005 2:27:03 AM
Somebody ought to tell this writer to grow up. If he doesn't like the church and he doesn't like the profession, follow his own advice. Drop out. Resign. Live a holy life in the world working at a regular job that actually contributes something to society. And while you're doing it, continue to study the Bible, pray, give generously to God's people in need, and tell others the good news.
It's a big order. My guess is, the guy couldn't really hack it. If he could, he'd be living out his advice and not spending his time on his whiny blog.
I'd be far more impressed if he had made some suggestions on how to "resign" or how to return to what is important as a pastor.
Let him take his own advice. Get a job loading trucks, or obtain a plumber's licence. Work 50 hours a week and try to make ends meet. Build a community while he's at it. To impress me even more, build a community that gives generously to charities, evangelises, supports missionaries, etc. Enjoy your little house church, and down the road a decade or so make another post telling me all the wonderful things that have happened...
Then, I'd be impressed. Until then, I will keep my profession, happily cash my paycheque, feed my family, be available for pastor things like visiting the sick, counselling families, etc., work with my board, manage the building, and so forth.
Oh yeah, while I'm at it, prepare a sermon and mentor my staff.
We don't have a perfect system, but it's not nearly as bad as this whiny, disgruntled writer makes it seem. Somehow, even under CEO pastors, people get saved, families get restored, charities are supported and missionaries are sent.
J-P
Posted by: Jean-Paul Paroissien | Jul 13, 2005 8:08:28 AM
Ricky,
I knew I'd earn some points with you on this one. :)
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Jul 13, 2005 8:18:01 AM
Quote:
"Somebody ought to tell this writer to grow up. If he doesn't like the church and he doesn't like the profession, follow his own advice. Drop out. Resign. Live a holy life in the world working at a regular job that actually contributes something to society. And while you're doing it, continue to study the Bible, pray, give generously to God's people in need, and tell others the good news."
My, my, my. Apparently the truth of the article has touched some very defensive nerves!
I believe the writer has follow his own advice and is apparently enjoying his new found freedom to be all tha God has gifted him and called him to be, which has increased his ministry, not hindered it.
Quote:
"Let him take his own advice. Get a job loading trucks, or obtain a plumber's licence. Work 50 hours a week and try to make ends meet. Build a community while he's at it. To impress me even more, build a community that gives generously to charities, evangelises, supports missionaries, etc. Enjoy your little house church, and down the road a decade or so make another post telling me all the wonderful things that have happened..."
My bet is that the community he has built through being freed from the role of "pastor" is far stronger than most because he is with real people because he wants to be, not because he's paid to be.
I would also bet that the people of his community know that he's there because he wants to be and not because it's expected of him and his "role." Instead of having a "community" that is a mile wide and only an inch thick, those in his community are better able to withstand the pressures that life brings and are not dependent upon being carried upon the narrow, weak shoulders of a man.
Quote:
"Until then, I will keep my profession, happily cash my paycheque, feed my family, be available for pastor things like visiting the sick, counselling families, etc., work with my board, manage the building, and so forth.
Oh yeah, while I'm at it, prepare a sermon and mentor my staff."
And therein lies the rub.
The majority of "pastors" do it because they're paid to, whereas the writer of the article does so because he's called to do it.
What a vast difference.
Those who are called to do it do so with absolute joy, without even an eye toward renumeration. Those who expect nothing in return for doing what Jesus did for us, will receive much more than any fleeting satisfaction that a paycheck could ever bring.
This is the love that Christ said would prove to the world that we are His disciples, not some trumped up "emotion" that is as thick as the paper on which a paycheck is printed. Believe it or not, most people know when we really love them with an unconditional love and when we're just going through the motions.
Quote:
"We don't have a perfect system, but it's not nearly as bad as this whiny, disgruntled writer makes it seem. Somehow, even under CEO pastors, people get saved, families get restored, charities are supported and missionaries are sent."
And people are saved in spite of the "system," not because of it.
God's love compels Him to reach out to man, without expecting anything in return. Why? Because it's His nature to be and to do so.
The question is, if we are who we claim to be, shouldn't we do the same?
It seems to me that the person who has to justify his/her position by tearing down the selfless actions of others is the one who should be pitied, for he/she has no understanding of eternity.
Posted by: Ricky | Jul 13, 2005 10:35:16 AM
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
The five fold ministry is not a spiritual gift it is a calling. Read what they are for who was he talking to and why maybe church leadership and order.
Second,
Did Jesus serve FULL TIME in his three years of ministry? Oh and did he not pay his disciple's tax "miracle"? Oh and did they pay for the first communion our did Jesus provide food drink and lodging?
Lastly,
Was not Paul paid so much to do the work of ministry that he had to ask the church to stop giving?
If you do not like the church then stay away from it don’t give your comments and don’t attend, I hear Waco has an opening for wacky people who don't like church.
I wait for your comments.
Posted by: Pastor D | Jul 13, 2005 12:00:32 PM
Ricky,
You quoted me and then said:
Anthony- "but now we lack a single visionary leader to set the course for the local body."
Ricky- "No you don't. Ever heard of the Spirit of God?
We need to discuss what the mind of Christ is (biblically) and how we obtain it."
I agree that we should all listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. But people, by their very nature, have different ways of dealing with different situations. You failed to address my point above that a plurality of leaders without a visionary leader (singular) is like a Doctor asking his patients on how to run the Doctor's office, what equipment to buy and how to treat patients. A plurality of leaders (a.k.a. "committee") is directionless. They'll choose the way that seems best to them, but often leads to failure because of a lack of consensus.
This is proven over and over and over again in Scripture: a single leader rises to the top every time because as a group, people are incapable of coming to agreement consistently.
Ricky, brother, please consider how your comments are read by others online. You and I can agree or disagree, but we can do it without sarcasm and insolence. I've read great advice for posting on someone's blog: treat the host and his guests with respect. It fine amd (by the nature of having a comments section) encouraged to give our thoughts, ideas and opinions - but I hope you understand that how you say what it is as important as what you say.
Blessings,
Anthony
Posted by: Anthony D. Coppedge | Jul 13, 2005 12:13:33 PM
3) If you're not engaging the unchurched on a personal level and giving them a chance, over time, to come and experience corporate worship, how is that being a good fisher of men? With my church, we put a lot of effort into making the unchurched and formerly churched feel at ease in the weekend services. Should we stop doing that because it's hard?
What does bringing an unchurched person to church have to do with being fisher of men?
I guess I need to know what un-churched means. Does it mean a beleiver that does not attend church or a non-believer that does not attend church?
If we mean non-believer then perhaps the term lost, unsaved, or some other phrase would be best used.
We are to fish for men. The men we are fishing for is those who are under God's wrath. The ones He will send to an eternal dammnation where the worm will not die, and the fire will not be quenched. A place of gnashing teeth and utter darknesses.
We are to be "witnesses" and to give a reason for our hope. While I appluade those who invite people to thier church, it is a good place to start, but each beleiver is resposible for personally sharing the gospel.
The Pastor, evangelist, teacher is to equip the saints for the work of ministry. Which by the way is more than simply preaching, teaching, it also requires OJT.
For those in leadership that are quick to point out the Shepard does not make sheep, but sheep do, remember that the pastor and other staff are sheep first, and leaders second.
I would also like to encourage those who share the gospel to share the whole counsel of God and without changing the words.
It is Hell not a Christ-less enternitiy.
By the way if you do not like Christ then the thought of eternity without Him is not all that bad.
Death is the "wages of Sin" not the "wages of humanity".
All who have sinned are condemmed already and they deserve it. Those who trust in Christ and His payment of the fine due are the ones who will enter the Kingdom.
Repentance is not optional.
God has a wondeful plan for the your life. However when talking to the unsaved we are using a word wonderful in a way that misleads them.
They understand wonderful to mean mostly if not always happy, fed, comfortable, etc..
While I do not share the gospel by saying turn to Christ so you can be beaten, stoned, or killed like Paul. I do not say follow Christ so you can be crucified like Peter, or any of the others who have suffered for Christ sake.
What I refuse to do is give people the assurance that by turning to Christ they get any benefit other than salvation from thier sins which has condemmed them to death.
Christ still heals today according to faith and scripture, He also according to scripture had chosen not to heal. Paul is one example.
Thier are other benefits we try to sell such as happiness, healed relationships, etc. All of which I believe does happen in a Christians life, but it is not a draw card to Christ.
The only Biblical reason for accepting Christ is salvation from the consequences of our sins.
I can conecede that it is possible I am wrong. If anyone can show me where Jesus or the apostles advocated turning to Christ for any reason other than salvation from sin or its consequences let me know.
Posted by: Franklin Reeves | Jul 13, 2005 12:58:52 PM
Writing in response to Ricky, who wrote:
"I believe the writer has follow his own advice and is apparently enjoying his new found freedom to be all tha God has gifted him and called him to be, which has increased his ministry, not hindered it."
Yeah, I suppose that's one possibility... On the other hand, since his blog (stupidchurchpeople.com) seems to indicate that he is NOT a pastor with a regular ministry, he might actually be enjoying his freedom but not building much in the way of the Kingdom.
Ricky: "Those who are called to do it do so with absolute joy, without even an eye toward remuneration. Those who expect nothing in return for doing what Jesus did for us, will receive much more than any fleeting satisfaction that a paycheck could ever bring."
Yeah, but I've met a lot of disgruntled kids of underpaid pastors whose families suffered while they laboured on behalf of the Kingdom. Paul was a tentmaker and it worked for him, however, he did not begrudge a worker the support due him. Support of God's workers is a concept established by God (remember all that Old Testament sacrifice and tithing and stuff) and seems to have worked well over the millennia...
I earn little enough compared to others with comparable education to ever have me believe that I do what I do for my paycheque. Still, having a regular paycheque allows me to care for my family AND the church.
Ricky: "And people are saved in spite of the "system," not because of it."
Last I spoke to Rick Warren, about 80 per cent of Saddleback's membership were baptized as adults. This demonstrates growth by conversion, a result of good old-fashioned evangelism flavoured by newfangled megachurch methodology. Celebrate Recovery at SVCC has reached many, many people who had not heard the gospel.
Programmes aren't intrinsically evil, and the system isn't inherently flawed. Good planning and programming gives good opportunities for kingdom work. Call me old fashioned, call me optimistic, call me stupid, but I'm far from ready to do away with the profession.
Ricky: "It seems to me that the person who has to justify his/her position by tearing down the selfless actions of others is the one who should be pitied, for he/she has no understanding of eternity."
Whose selfless actions? The guy's website is full of pictures of beer drinking, fast food eating, and driving a BMW. He apparently isn't suffering much for the gospel. In fact, it's clear that he isn't involved in kingdom work at all, with the possible exception that his babbling might tear down some hardworking pastors struggling to stay in the profession...
I fully understand eternity and I fully appreciate the sacrifices made by many in my church and the movement to which we belong. I give sacrificially to the cause, and I invest untold hours to the kingdom. My church is neither perfect nor hopelessly lost. We're a group of sinners redeemed by God, and I remind my people of this week after week, from the pulpit and from the hospital, to children and retirees. Yes, I happily receive a paycheque. So be it.
J-P
Posted by: Jean-Paul Paroissien | Jul 13, 2005 2:53:02 PM
I liked this, because it made me think. Would I like to see the church more active? Yes. Outide of the four walls of the building we mistakenly think is church? Yes Would removing the salary of the pastor help achieve this? Don't know!
You see I believe in the five fold ministry. We need pastors, shepherds, apostles, teachers and evangelists to equip the body of Christ.
Scripture says without vision the people perish. And we need leaders to help us move into that vision
Now most pastors spend too much time managing their church. This has to stop. Qutie frankly that can easily be lay led, by business oriented people within the congregation.
But to expect one man or woman to do a full week's work elsewhere, give time to family and self, as well as spend quality time with God - I can't see it working.
It's time to get the pastor out of the meetings and onto his/ her knees. That's where visions are seen. Then help him / her up, and help make the vision a reality. Out there, where it matters.
Posted by: Lorna | Jul 13, 2005 3:49:53 PM
I liked this, because it made me think. Would I like to see the church more active? Yes. Outide of the four walls of the building we mistakenly think is church? Yes Would removing the salary of the pastor help achieve this? Don't know!
You see I believe in the five fold ministry. We need pastors, shepherds, apostles, teachers and evangelists to equip the body of Christ.
Scripture says without vision the people perish. And we need leaders to help us move into that vision
Now most pastors spend too much time managing their church. This has to stop. Qutie frankly that can easily be lay led, by business oriented people within the congregation.
But to expect one man or woman to do a full week's work elsewhere, give time to family and self, as well as spend quality time with God - I can't see it working.
It's time to get the pastor out of the meetings and onto his/ her knees. That's where visions are seen. Then help him / her up, and help make the vision a reality. Out there, where it matters.
Posted by: Lorna | Jul 13, 2005 3:51:31 PM
Pastor D says:
"Lastly, Was not Paul paid so much to do the work of ministry that he had to ask the church to stop giving?"
I think you're wrong. Supply the Bible verse, and let's look at it in context.
Paul was noted for being self-sufficient and providing for himself, working in a trade as a tent-maker. Certainly the opposite of highly compensated "preachers" like today's John Hagee, TD Jakes, and Benny Hinn. Our Lord Jesus had no place to rest his head, yet these fellows live like kings.
Matthew 8:19-20
Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Jul 13, 2005 8:16:10 PM
Quote:
"Yeah, I suppose that's one possibility... On the other hand, since his blog (stupidchurchpeople.com) seems to indicate that he is NOT a pastor with a regular ministry, he might actually be enjoying his freedom but not building much in the way of the Kingdom."
If I recall correctly, his website said that he had served as a pastor for 16 years before he realized that he was standing in the way of real spiritual transformation. I wonder how many "pastors" today would admit to that fact and be willing to put their money where their mouths are and step down out of the way of real transformation.
And please define what a "regular ministry" is. To say that just because a person doesn't receive a paycheck he/she is not in ministry is as arrogant a statement as anyone could make. Remember, J.P., God doesn't see as man sees, meaning what you call "irregular ministry" God may call "blessed."
Quote:
"Yeah, but I've met a lot of disgruntled kids of underpaid pastors whose families suffered while they laboured on behalf of the Kingdom."
That's because those "pastors" placed more importance on "the ministry" than they did on their families, which is the first and foremost ministry a person can be privileged to have.
If a person would rather make his family suffer in order to hold onto a title, then he should be considered worse than an unbeliever.
Quote:
"Paul was a tentmaker and it worked for him, however, he did not begrudge a worker the support due him."
I'm convinced that Paul would begrudge such a person who equated the privilege of serving Christ with that of a job. What about doing things as unto the Lord and trusting Him that your needs will be met instead of expecting it from others?
Quote:
"Support of God's workers is a concept established by God (remember all that Old Testament sacrifice and tithing and stuff) and seems to have worked well over the millennia..."
Worked well? Then why has giving been on the decline for decades now? Could it be because it is a non-New Testament practice of which people feel coerced into doing?
Tithing is no where supported in the New Testament. Instead, we are to give FREELY for that leads to "cheerful givers."
Perhaps Todd would open a thread where tithing can be discussed, as it's too expansive to be discissed here. Rest assured, though, that tithing is not supported by the New Testament, which is where we're supposed to be living.
Quote:
"I earn little enough compared to others with comparable education to ever have me believe that I do what I do for my paycheque. Still, having a regular paycheque allows me to care for my family AND the church."
Then why not find you a better paying job and be an example of how to live a life of selfless giving before those in your sphere of influence? Why be a martyr for a cause (i.e., pastor as office/title) that has no biblical support?
Quote:
"Last I spoke to Rick Warren, about 80 per cent of Saddleback's membership were baptized as adults. This demonstrates growth by conversion, a result of good old-fashioned evangelism flavoured by newfangled megachurch methodology. Celebrate Recovery at SVCC has reached many, many people who had not heard the gospel."
Please, let's not speak about Rick Warren and his supposed "success." I've been in a lot of trouble on this blog because of him and his methodology.
Quote:
"Programmes aren't intrinsically evil, and the system isn't inherently flawed. Good planning and programming gives good opportunities for kingdom work. Call me old fashioned, call me optimistic, call me stupid, but I'm far from ready to do away with the profession."
Yes they are when they are substituted in place of being Spirit-led. When the Spirit truly leads, there's no need to wring one's hands over what gimmick to come up with to satisfy the insatiable hunger of the consumers who are fast becoming the majority of those that fill most pews on Sunday mornings.
To me, programs speak more about taking control than it does about what it means to letting "the Lord build the (His) house."
Quote:
"Whose selfless actions? The guy's website is full of pictures of beer drinking, fast food eating, and driving a BMW. He apparently isn't suffering much for the gospel. In fact, it's clear that he isn't involved in kingdom work at all, with the possible exception that his babbling might tear down some hardworking pastors struggling to stay in the profession..."
"Full of pictures of beer drinking, fast food eating, and driving a BMW?" Come on. I think there is one picture of a dude drinking a beer (which I don't agree with, by the way, but that's for another thread) and one of a BMW (although neither can you tell how old the car is).
Your envy speaks volumes.
It seems to me that you are jealous of the freedom that this man has garnered by having the courage to step down from such a lofty position (in the eyes of men) and to seek to build true community, one-to-one, with real people in real relationships.
He has done a great service to many who will hopefully read his story and follow his example in renouncing the control that men seek to exercise over something that is uniquely Christ's, His Church. Sounds awfully radical, doesn't it? Yet that's exactly what the Church needs today.
Quote:
"I fully understand eternity and I fully appreciate the sacrifices made by many in my church and the movement to which we belong. I give sacrificially to the cause, and I invest untold hours to the kingdom. My church is neither perfect nor hopelessly lost. We're a group of sinners redeemed by God, and I remind my people of this week after week, from the pulpit and from the hospital, to children and retirees. Yes, I happily receive a paycheque. So be it."
But would you continue what you do if you did not receive a paycheck?
Paul did mention that those who preach the gospel were free to receive renumeration from those to whom they ministered.
BUT, Paul chose not to do so because he knew that to do so could lead to possible hindrances of the preaching of the gospel. Instead of seeing his ministry as something that is voluntary, of which he would receive a reward, he viewed it as a complusion, meaning that the ministry to him was more than something that he could choose to walk away from, but rather it was something that was entrusted to him, which no amount of renumeration (as in salary) or lack of could ever keep him from ministering.
How refreshing! To see someone who did not, as in Paul, and does not, as in the author of the article, allow the degree of his ministry to be relavent as to the amount of financial support he received or didn't receive.
If only we all could be like that!
Posted by: Ricky | Jul 13, 2005 10:08:58 PM
I've been a pastor for 20 years, my father was a pastor and my grandfather was a pastor. I work with several pastors in my present job. I know that there are pastors who lead from impure motives, pastors who hinder the spiritual growth of their people, pastors who tailor their ministry for money.
But I know far more pastors who pour their lives out day after day, who have been attacked spiritually, relationally and even physically. And yet they continue to minister out of a pure love for God and his people. In the last 24 hours I have spoken with 3 different pastors who's lives are being ripped apart, but they won't give up. Not while souls are on the line.
It breaks my heart to read that pastors are what is wrong with the church, that pastors should all resign, that pastors are the number one weakness in the church today. I don't know how closely the average pastor resembles the vision Paul had for leadership, but I believe that pastors who pour out their lives to lead people from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light are making a difference in the world.
Posted by: Geoff Surratt | Jul 13, 2005 10:37:42 PM
Great Point Bernie (as usual)
What do you think would be the response if I were to post:
"Homosexuality is wrong, ie sinful and if you don't like it, grow up and get out of the church."
Yet, here are pastors/leaders posting these things here on this blog:
"grow up" "doesn't like the church/profession... Drop out. Resign."
Why? Because some stand against sin, can Scripturally give an account for the Hope that is in them and know what The Gospel is and can point out when there is a different Gospel.
Why are you so quick to accept the professing "christian" who practices homosexuality yet decisively tell someone who says the church has it wrong to… grow up and get out?
Double standard starts with a double mind and finishes with a double tongue. Insult? No, statement for all who are double minded.
Btw, you'll notice the same "type" of insults taking place on the homosexual blog:
"brain dead (or "limited")" "appallingly ignorant" "kindergarten" "lazy and personally ignorant" just to name a few
Why?
In debate it is commonly known that when a defenseless position is exposed they are left with only insults and name calling in hopes to antagonize and move to another subject or draw away from their loss.
Posted by: BeHim | Jul 13, 2005 11:05:38 PM
Geoff wrote, "But I know far more pastors who pour their lives out day after day, who have been attacked spiritually, relationally and even physically. And yet they continue to minister out of a pure love for God and his people. In the last 24 hours I have spoken with 3 different pastors who's lives are being ripped apart, but they won't give up. Not while souls are on the line."
Thanks Geoff... souls are on the line... and that's the important thing to remember. And while some do berate the church and want to work outside the church (I say, "go for it"); the church is still having an impact in many areas; and pastors are not the bad guys.
The pastoral profession is an admirable one... can't think of one that's more admirable actually. And that's whether you're paid or not.
To those who prefer ministry without pay and to work for Christ outside the church structure... great... you're doing valuable ministry.
To those who feel called to work inside the church to change lives and redeem souls, and are paid to do so; I commend you as well.
I know, I know... I asked for this one by posting the topic to begin with. I thought the author had a couple valid points; and I like pieces that make me think and challenge my views. But, once again, it's turned into an argument. Too bad.
Maybe we'll just change this blog into talking about things like puppy dogs and butterflies.
Somehow, I think there'd be people opposed to that as well. :)
It's been a long day... good nite! :)
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Jul 13, 2005 11:46:07 PM
When we compare ourselves with other workers like you mentioned, landscaping, etc. within the church we pay someone for doing something that we do not know how to do. Sometimes we pay someone for doing something thqat we couod do but choose otherwise. I have pastored churches that felt that they did not need a pastor and yet after the fact there was no growth to speak of. I think that churches hire or call a pastor for a variety of reasons. Even though we may not agree with most of them we still fill the bill. I do believe, this is not because of ego mind you, that many churches could grow but most would not simply because the body could not or would not do some of the things that we do. This being for many reasons. That is an interesting question: what would happen to the church if all of the pastors ceased being pastors?
Posted by: Larry Dickey | Jul 14, 2005 1:31:30 AM
Well everyone, I love the discussion that my original post has created on this site and admire Todd for taking a chance to put it out there. I'll be slipping him a $20 bill next time I see him. I wish the post had generated this much discussion on my own site.
I cannot wait to comment further however it is quite late and after an evening of "beer-drinking" and "fast-food eating" I am quite exhausted. I need to get a good nights rest in preparation for a full-day of driving my BMW for my "real job".
Love to all and I will check back in on the discussion. I do have some comments to make on the comments - so stay tuned.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 14, 2005 4:28:56 AM
Wow,
What a mess this conversation is. I mean to be open to new ideas and concepts is a wonderful thing. But I have to agree with those who questioned this guy's posting. I mean how can the man cuss and swear and talk about making names for oneself when isn't that the same thing he is doing. Now I am not part nor have I ever been part of what many of you here define as the emerging church but let me say from an observers point of view that it is very inconsistent and on some levels unscriptural. I mean to make an argument like well Paul was a "tent maker" as a means to attack pastor with money is really reaching for straws. If we want to utilize this kind of thinking then maybe the next argument should be abolishing free enterprise and developing the slavery system utilized the Roman Empire's means of governing. I said all of that to say this we need to take scripture literally but not to miss the point that we aren't trying to duplicate a particular character's garments but instead mimic the priciple of what is being said. I don't believe for one second that if we follow the priciples the Bible has laid before us that we will commit some of the incidences in question.(ie. pastor's running things like business etc...) I believe that pastors serves as both a gift and a position. Just like people need a government to keep order so does the church need a leader to direct them. Of course, I have argued this point before and what I feel missing in this area is a common ground. We need to take in consideration the pros of this so called emergent movement but lets not become a group who argues more on grey lines and less on black and white ones. Truth is, no movement is right entirely and for those of us who take it as the complete answer to our church problems only deceives themselves. Thus our delima, will we ever agree to dissagree. Who ever knows.
Posted by: Pete King | Jul 14, 2005 1:20:44 PM
The removal of paid pastors certainly isn't a novel idea. This issued was raised a few times since seminary (mid 70's).
I think there are several questions the church faces inferred by the article:
1. What should the church be doing?
2. How should should the church accomplish her purpose?
3. How well is the church fulfilling her purpose?
These questions should be evaluated regularly in order to effectively lead the church (to remove paid leadership because the church isn't fulfilling the mission confuses the issue). Can you imagine an NBA team removing the coach and letting the players lead because the players don't play to their potential? Or going coachless because the players are the people intended to play?
The Apostle Paul supports a paid leadership in his writings to Timothy (1 Tm. 5:17-18). This also implies some leadership structure in the early church. Paul didn't encourage Timothy retire. He exhorted him to employ his giftedness to train and mobilize others while he did the work of an evangelist (2 Tm. 4:1-5).
Posted by: m copeland | Jul 14, 2005 1:28:19 PM
I feel the discussion is more geared around what should pastors (say Timothy or Titus for example) do.
The majority of pastors revolve around "The Purpose Driven Life" [emergent or relevant movement] being taught EVERYWHERE - baptist, IC, non-denom, AG, even catholic and methodist and are doing what this blogger and others see as the major disconnect from Scripture (although I'll consent there are some pastors here that are not going towards this "movement" - praise God).
The pastor should be training elders (some who become pastors) and deacons (some who become elders) and teaching/preaching the Word of God to all (the Believers in the pew and the unbelievers who the Spirit has drawn) which contains The Gospel in every single 1187 chapters. This training (instruction) takes the form of doctrine in correction and conduct in reproof for edification in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
The majority of churches have moved away from this (and other things - like the sin of man - which is to say 'a different gospel' but that's another topic) and directly into being married to the world (which is exactly what the church of Corinth [Pergamos] and Leadocea did - note the key to their redemption is REPENT). In the form of "I am leader you follow me" and "CEO's needed". It's become corporate churchianity with the head, while growing in the measurement of man, in direct contradiction to Scripture.
Posted by: BeHim | Jul 14, 2005 1:48:22 PM
Quote:
"The pastor should be training elders (some who become pastors) and deacons (some who become elders)..."
Sorry, but this "the pastor" stuff is just not supported by Scripture. In fact, elders and deacons have more support than the title of "pastor."
Paul didn't appoint "pastors" in the churches but elders, mature believers whose lives exemplified the gospel. These elders' were commissioned to guard the flock from heresies and divisions but were never to take the "lead role" of a ficticious office such as "pastor."
They were to teach and to influence the younger more immature believers UNTIL they became mature and influenced and guarded the younger believers. They were not to be the leaders but ended up leading from behind as they, as exemplifed by Paul's attitude toward the churches, were to let the believers learn together what it meant to be led by the Spirit and not by a man or men.
Quote:
"...and teaching/preaching the Word of God to all (the Believers in the pew and the unbelievers who the Spirit has drawn)"
Which is one of the major problems with the role of "pastor:" the believers are still in the pews!
Why? Because they've become dependent little children who look to a man to feed them God's word when they are well able to read, pray, listen encourage, et al, themselves.
Unfortunately, while most men who call themselves "pastor" have a genuine desire to see God's people grow, it is their very presence that hinders such maturity by continuing to bottle-feed the believers instead of "kicking them out of the nest (pew)." Seeking to grow believers, "pastors" have done nothing but create a dependent class of believers whose faith is built more on what a man says than God's word.
It's time for honest introspection in the view of God's word regarding the practice of creating titles and positions that have no Scriptural foundation and to seek the ability to admit that we've hindered God's work instead of increase it.
Posted by: Ricky | Jul 14, 2005 6:08:38 PM
wow! my hats off to you ricky, i couldn't have said it better myself. i got an email telling me about this thread and i was going to chime in but it looks like you have things covered just fine :)
Posted by: Eddie | Jul 14, 2005 6:26:07 PM
-RULES FOR THIS BLOG-
1.INSERT LONG QUOTE (OR MANY OF THEM)
2.ACT LIKE YOU KNOW RICK WARREN PERSONALLY
EX; "SO, YEAH ME AND RW WERE CHILLIN.."
3.BE AN EMERGENT ADDICT
4.REFER TO OTHER BLOGERS WITH NAMES USED BACK IN THE DAY. "HEY WHINY."
5.BE STOKED & TAKE PRIDE IN YOUR "PASTOR" TITLE, IT'S THE CHURCH BLING, SO FLAUNT IT!
6.LISTEN TO GUNS & ROSES. OKAY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
7.YOU ORIGALLY HAD A DREAM OF BEING A CEO OF A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR COMPANY, BUT DIDN'T MAKE IT.
SCP KEEP IT UP...
Posted by: The Godfather | Jul 15, 2005 1:59:07 AM
Now that is funny.
Funny hmmmm not funny haha.
Posted by: BeHim | Jul 15, 2005 2:47:21 AM
Hey everyone, just for clarification again, I am Steve, the original writer of "The Pastor Problem" that Todd so graciously posted here.
I said I would comment here further and react to some of your comments, but that seems a little superfluous.
So if you like, head on over to stupidchurchpeople.com where you can read all of my blogs, get a full-flavor as to who I am and what I am about. Sure the name of my site and the podcasts are a little inflammatory on the surface, but I think if you hang in there, it might make some sense. And you do not have to agree...that's the beautiful thing about dialogue. I am not even certain if I agree with everything I say all the time...it's just all part of the process. I hope this can be appreciated.
I will certainly continue the dialogue online, or via email or however you might choose to do so. Take care!
Posted by: Steve | Jul 15, 2005 5:17:36 AM
BeHim,
C'mon. That was definitely funny haha as well as funny hmmm.
----------
Everyone,
Follow Steve's advice. Go over to StupidChurchPeople.com and read all his posts. The Podcast is hilarious (but sometimes over the top, so beware--I recommend the Benny Hinn-cast). I don't think you're getting the full picture of where he's coming from if you only read this one post.
Peace.
Posted by: dorsey | Jul 15, 2005 6:36:53 PM
These guys deserve no time whatsoever as their website indicts them altogether. They have no idea what they are speaking of and anyone who would embrace them had better take a look at their website first.
I am all for good discussion, but the one who initiates the discussion must be valid. I give these guys no credit nor validity at all; therefore I will end this commentary.
(stupidchurchpeople.com)
Posted by: eddie | Jul 19, 2005 10:15:49 AM
huh?
Posted by: dorsey | Jul 20, 2005 6:58:11 AM
The Church today has Hirelings.(Businessmen) What the Church needs is a Shepherd...... Who cares about bigger and better buildings, more real estate, cruises,programs out the wazoo???
There are a lot of hurting people out there and the Church is missing the mark...There is a Church on every corner, like 7-11's, but our country is broken and hurting with no place to get help. There are churches with acres of property and parking lots, but those churches only have one service on Sundays. The rest of the time the church is closed. Any meetings are scheduled at homes of the church members...Some pastors have non-pub phone numbers...So, has the Church lost its focus? Yes, most definitely....
Posted by: Anne | Sep 11, 2005 3:11:03 AM
So here's a question. If all of the pastors in all of the churches resigned or were "let go"...what would happen? Or, to rewrite a line from the old Beatles song...."Imagine there's no pastors. It's easy if you try!"
Half-way thru your essay I came upon this little gem of a paragraph. I stopped and pondered. “This is wrong!” I said to myself; then continued reading.
First let me inform you that I found this essay over in the forums of : http://www.3dff.com/php/viewtopic.php?t=1038 . I am not sure if you have knowledge of this type of posting or if you gave permission?
Second “Imagine” was written by John Lennon, and he was not part of the Beatles when he wrote it and sang it. That is why I stopped and exclaimed, “This is wrong.” It is a minor item, but it caused me to doubt the balance of your arguments against “Do we need Pastor’s.”
First rebuttal. If we do not have an organized team in place, how are normal duties of caring for the widows, etc. demanded by Christ carried out? I point to Acts, and the appointment of Stephen as a “leader” in this area. The First Century leaders quickly understood the huge ramifications of Christ’s decree.
I tend to hear the answer to this as: “In small groups, this is handled more efficiently.”
I would tend to agree with the exception that human ego still is in small groups and in-fighting is a natural by-product of that ego. The larger structures tend to remove the ego problem but instills another problem: “it removes the personal touch.”
Second rebuttal: “Start encouraging your congregations to stop coming to so many church meetings and ask them to get involved in the local community.”
Since when is the local community “different” from that of the “church” community?
A certain mentality arose from the Roman persecution and then from the Catholic onslaught that followed… That mentality was to huddled together in small bands to avoid detection from the big bad Romans and later big bad Catholics. This “banding together” for a common cause, still is with us today. Personalities arose from this and all manner of “banding” for the wrong reason took place.
“Pastoral” types today need, more than ever, to see how vital an organized base is needed. Not for the “Sunday go to meeting” service but for the service of small groups. All small groups then assemble for a weekly celebration of God. The community then becomes you and I working together for Christ. Christ then becomes the community that He planed.
Will firing all paid staff stop all ego problems of man? No.
Can the “emerging church” in its fight to emerge, live with and within the community as it stands, without constant vocal dispute. Working inside to rebuild rather than deconstruct?
This is a question I wonder about.
Reformation from personalities is completely needed but is that God’s desire? Do we really need to deconstruct everything. I think not.
I generally like the Themed message approach as set up in the ancient Jewish synagogues; a general reading of the Bible scriptural writings with an interpretation of that writing. An understanding that interpretation is possible and desirable has been removed from today’s message…it is either black or white…This is the personalities problem we have. God has given some individuals enormous leadership qualitative authority; others just have the egos that claim it.
Seeking the Kingdom of God means, we are to reject the works of man. Man’s ego hates the latter portion of the equation. However, we should embrace rejection of man in his natural state. We just flat out do not teach this.
Small groups, building small groups, leading to a larger celebration of God. Political speeches from the general leaders thrown out…
This is only a fast thought response built and written as I go… therefore, there are many open spots exposed for debate.
Debates like the Stoics or Greek philosophical debate, for knowledge sake, is not needed.
Debate which gives gory to God is desired.
Now back to why red flags were thrown on the Imagine lyrics. If we can not get the basic facts right, how can we proceed with new ones. Imagine was released in Sept. 1971, the official breakup date for the Beatles, 1970.
What do you think? Any validity? I have some thoughts, but as blog owner I'll keep them to myself for the time being and share them as the discussion moves forward (if anyone's interested)...
Well, in a nutshell a very small start. I am interested and maybe completely wrong in my viewpoint.. but viewpoints need to be aired, thanks for letting me rant a little.
Posted by: Steve | Sep 12, 2005 5:33:00 PM
